25 Jun
2021
25 Jun
'21
9:09 a.m.
Hi,
The crush rule min_size property is easily confused with pool min_size.
One could imagine a data loss scenario where an operator "fixed" a
misconfigured cluster by setting the crush rule min_size to 2 (but
left a pool min_size at 1).
Should we rename one of them (... the crush one)? ... e.g. min_osds/max_osds ?
Going further, do we even have a use-case for manually changing a
crush_rule's min_size/max_size. Could we simply hide them and hardcode
internally to min_size=1 and max_size=100?
Cheers, Dan
25 Jun
25 Jun
12:57 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:10 AM Dan van der Ster <dan(a)vanderster.com> wrote:
Hi,
The crush rule min_size property is easily confused with pool min_size.
One could imagine a data loss scenario where an operator "fixed" a
misconfigured cluster by setting the crush rule min_size to 2 (but
left a pool min_size at 1).
Should we rename one of them (... the crush one)? ... e.g. min_osds/max_osds ?
Going further, do we even have a use-case for manually changing a
crush_rule's min_size/max_size. Could we simply hide them and hardcode
internally to min_size=1 and max_size=100?
When we made the transition from rulesets to rules several years back
this was the end goal, but we didn't get all of the way there. I
can't quite remember why, but I think at this point (since all traces
of rulesets are gone) we should have an easier time removing these
fields entirely.
sage
1043
days inactive
1043
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Dan van der Ster -
Sage Weil